Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the great people of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, and every single dollar matters, whether it be the parent filling up the family car before taking the kids to school, the tradesperson driving from job site to job site or the truck driver delivering food that ends up in our grocery stores. It certainly matters to the families in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge who are trying to make their paycheques stretch a little further each month. When I am at the east or west Woodbridge seniors clubs, the topic on everyone's mind is how expensive life has gotten. For seniors, OAS and CPP do not go far enough. As for their grandkids, they feel that life is unaffordable and they will never be able to get ahead. It has been a year and a half since the Liberals were elected, and many are wondering how life has changed, how their lives have been made better. Yes, there are many global challenges that further complicate the problem, including the unjustified tariffs on our country, but many of the affordability concerns that Canadians are talking about predate this, and many of them are self-inflicted after almost 11 years now of bad government policy. There have been many announcements from the government, but we have seen very little progress. We see a government that is great at marketing its announcements but very little action. I would submit that things have actually gotten worse. The Liberals in the last year and a half have doubled the deficit and added hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending above the reckless levels inherited from the previous disastrous Trudeau Liberal government. One need look no further than the fact that we are now at the highest levels of government spending as a share of the economy since 1996 and have the biggest deficit outside of COVID in Canadian history. As a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, it is my job to hold the government accountable, question its expenditures and, yes, agree where there is room to agree. Just yesterday, when I asked a question in the House on the cost of retaliatory tariffs for Canadians, the government House leader proceeded to act as if such a question was part of a “‘blame Canada’ pattern”. I mean, how dare the Conservative opposition ask a simple question of basic economics to the Liberal government? We know transparency is not the Liberals' strong suit. Following months of Conservative calls to extend gas tax relief for Canadians, the federal government decided to suspend the excise tax on gasoline and diesel in April, providing relief of 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. This suspension was originally scheduled to expire after Labour Day, but the government has now introduced legislation to extend it to January 2027. For Canadians who depend on their vehicles, and for businesses that depend on affordable transportation, the extension provides additional relief. It also raises an important question about what happens when that relief expires. Conservatives have constantly called for greater relief, and we believe the government should go even further by removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027, which would save Canadians 25¢ per litre and provide an annual savings of $1,200 per family. I will also note that when Conservatives proposed to remove the federal excise tax on fuel for a longer time, Liberals downplayed it as having little to no impact on affordability for Canadians. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière. How much could that wasted time and delay have saved Canadians? Let us think about it. We had a motion in this very House on this exact issue that the Liberals voted against several months prior. We have seen this before. The Liberals backtracked on their previous narrative regarding their tax policy. Exhibit A is the consumer carbon tax. As the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested earlier today, the Liberals are plagiarizing parts of our platform for their own, and it is no surprise that they are because that is exactly what Canadians need to address issues of affordability and the cost of living. Fuel taxes drive up costs for Canadians, and the impact extends well beyond the gas station. When fuel costs rise, the consequences are felt throughout the economy, and ultimately, those costs find their ways into the wallets of every single Canadian. Let us consider what happens before a family even walks into a grocery store. A farmer needs fuel to operate equipment and produce food. A trucking company needs diesel to transport that food. A distributor needs to move it to a warehouse, and another truck delivers it to a grocery store. Every stage involves transportation, and every single stage has costs. When fuel becomes more expensive, businesses face pressure to absorb these costs, reduce spending elsewhere or pass some of those expenditures along to the customers. That is why Conservatives have been calling for the government to go further. Lower fuel costs can help families at the pump while easing some of the pressures facing the businesses that produce and deliver the goods Canadians rely on. As someone who spent 20 years in industry, I understand the importance of getting materials from a supplier to a factory and the finished product from a factory to a customer. The manufacturing transportation costs are part of the price of doing business. It is a top-three line item on most financial statements. A company might be doing everything it can to improve productivity, control expenses and remain competitive, but it still needs to purchase fuel to move its products. When those costs rise, it can put additional pressure on the company's margins and ability to compete. This is particularly relevant today when Canadian manufacturers are already navigating significant uncertainty in their trade relationship with the largest market, the United States. For businesses in Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Ontario, transportation costs are one of several factors that determine whether they can offer competitive prices, attract orders and maintain employment. Fuel tax relief can help with one of those pressures. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also reported significant financial pressure among small businesses. Among those who considered it a bad time to start a business, 88% cited high costs, 65% pointed at taxes and 53% identified government red tape. These are Canadians who invest their savings, take risks and employ people in our communities. When their costs rise, it can become harder to expand, invest in new equipment, hire workers or offer competitive pricing. Conservatives also called for reforms to federal permitting, taxation and regulation to address Canada's broader competitive challenges. For example, we have learned that there are over 100,000 different regulations on the manufacturing sector alone. The decisions Parliament makes on fuel taxes are a part of that discussion. I want to turn to the experience of younger Canadians. The finance minister claimed his government is fighting every day for young people and their generation, yet a recent RBC report highlights that more than half of Canadian parents are financially supporting their adult children, giving an average of $6,100 just last year. Young Canadians should not need the bank of mom and dad to afford groceries and rent. A significant portion of Canada's brain drain is because of the cost of living for our young people. Conservatives have raised concerns about the scale of federal spending, the deficit and the long-term costs of servicing public debt. Those concerns deserve careful consideration when the government is asking Canadians to accept that further fuel tax relief cannot be sustained beyond next spring. Bill C-38 also presents an opportunity to consider the broader fuel tax proposal. Conservatives have called for removing all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027, including the GST on fuel, while also proposing changes to the clean fuel regulations and the permanent elimination of the industrial carbon tax. The government has estimated that extending the existing tax suspension will provide an additional $2.9 billion in tax relief. That makes the scheduled return of the tax particularly important to examine. If the government recognizes that fuel tax relief can help Canadians and Canadian businesses manage rising costs, Parliament should understand why the relief is scheduled to end on April 1. The families I represent in Vaughan—Woodbridge are looking for greater financial security. They want to know that their children have opportunities to purchase a home, that their businesses can remain competitive and that their paycheques will cover the costs of everyday life.

Madam Speaker, we are facing a major affordability crisis, and in that same spirit of collaboration, we would like to see the government extend this fuel tax break even further. We would also like to see it take some of our other ideas on affordability. We have a serious problem with regulations that have a stranglehold on the Canadian economy. We need serious tax reform. I believe it was a Liberal prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who once said that if Canada wants to be competitive with the United States, the largest market, it is not going to be a market competition. We have to have a more competitive regulatory system and a much more competitive tax system. I would like to see the Liberals collaborate with us on those things to increase affordability for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, we see a theme here. The Liberal government spends 11 years recklessly destroying the Canadian economy and then wants to take credit for programs that it institutes to apparently help subsidize the people in the economy that it destroyed. To answer the member's question, we need to see the spirit of collaboration on serious things like tax reform, on things that will help us build up our leverage in trade negotiations and that will help promote competitiveness. We would like to see the Liberals actually start building energy infrastructure so we can take advantage of this unique opportunity to capitalize on our natural resources, so we can lower business and personal tax for people and really target key industries and see them thrive. We have everything we need in this country. We just need the Liberals onside to promote these ideas.

Madam Speaker, the constituents from Vaughan—Woodbridge and, frankly, Canadians right across this entire country recognize the unique position that Canada is in with our large natural resources that we sit upon. What they would like to see the government do is move at speeds not seen before, like it promised in the last election, so we can develop the infrastructure, export our natural resources and build up this country for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, a Desjardins report confirms there is a double tariff shock on manufacturing businesses here in Canada. A business owner in Woodbridge was not only hit by crushing 50% tariffs on his exports to the U.S. but also recently lost a steel drum contract due to a 50% countertariff imposed by his own government. Washington started this trade war, but how is the Prime Minister going to ensure that Canada's response does not place an undue burden on Canadian businesses and consumers?

Mr. Speaker, today we heard the minister keep talking about support packages. Oxford economists have been clear that they may soften the blow, but they will not solve the problem. Economist Trevor Tombe estimates that the government's countertariffs could cost Canadian consumers $4 billion. Meanwhile, businesses in Vaughan—Woodbridge are facing increased costs to their inputs and being forced to consider relocating south of the border. We should out-compete the Americans, not out-tax them. Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians how much his countertariffs will cost them?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that affordability is the best it has been in a decade, but full-time workers are living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford a home. Families are spending over 120% of their income on rent and food alone. People are even skipping surgeries and other major life events just to survive. The Liberals' inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies created this recession and cost of living crisis. It is not global forces; it is Liberal choices. When will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that caused this crisis so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this up. The Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in a decade. Then ministers in the House rise and take credit for programs they implemented to address all the damage they caused. Their promised surveillance pricing legislation to lower grocery costs will not even take effect before 2028. While millions of Canadians cannot afford to eat, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering, and all of that on the taxpayers' dime. When will this Prime Minister stop making Canadians pay for a crisis he built, a recession he caused and dinner that he put on their tab?

Mr. Speaker, in 1952, a courageous 21-year-old woman left her small town in Treviso, Italy, with her father by her side. They boarded a train bound for Genoa. From there, alone, she stepped onto a ship and began that now famous journey across the Atlantic, arriving at Pier 21 in Halifax. She came to Canada alone, speaking no English and carrying little more than hope. That young woman was my grandmother, Olga Guglielmin, who celebrated her 94th birthday this year. Like so many Italian Canadians, Nonna Olga came in search of a dream. It was the dream of family, opportunity and a better life than the one she had left behind. She taught us that the greatest riches in life are not measured in dollars, but in relationships. Around her table, with a simple tablecloth, good food, candlelight and loved ones gathered close, she showed us what truly mattered. This Italian Heritage Month, I honour all Italian-Canadian nonni, especially my Nonna Olga, whose courage, integrity and love continue to guide us.

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Now the Liberals want Canadians arguing over labels: technical recession, marginal recession, full recession. Even the Prime Minister himself admitted a technical recession and a recession are the same thing. Families are not sitting around the kitchen table debating definitions. They are looking at higher mortgage payments, grocery bills that keep climbing and paycheques that are not keeping up. Our economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says there is less than a 1% chance that this government meets its own fiscal anchor. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada is warning that one in 10 Torontonians may not be able to renew their mortgages next year. Canadians have worked hard, played by the rules and done everything asked of them. They should not be falling further behind because the government cannot control its spending. Canadians need a serious plan to restore growth, protect paycheques and bring hope back to the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, Canada lost 18,000 jobs in April. The unemployment rate is now 6.9%. Youth unemployment jumped to 14.3%. Young Canadians are unemployed longer than at any time since 1976. Instead of results, these Liberals have given us more job losses and more of the same. The Prime Minister told Canadians they must prepare for sacrifices, while young Canadians are already sacrificing jobs, opportunities and their futures. How much longer will the Liberal government force young people to sacrifice for its failures?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals speak of their latest programs, but the investors have already given us their verdict. Capital is leaving this country at a record pace. Our investment per worker is the lowest in the G7. In a country that needs millions of homes, 100,000 skilled tradespeople cannot find a project to work on. A country is not built by speeches, MOUs and press releases. It is built by employers willing to invest here, and they are choosing to invest elsewhere. When will the Prime Minister fix the conditions that have driven investment, jobs and opportunity out of this country?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize something truly special happening in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I recently launched a youth advisory council, and the response has been remarkable. Young people in our community are stepping up. They are showing up and saying, “We care about the future of this country, and we want a seat at the table.” That is exactly the spirit that builds Canada, and that spirit is alive and well in Woodbridge. After more than a decade of Liberal government, our young people are worried. They are worried about crime in their neighbourhoods and the rise of artificial intelligence. They are wondering what AI means for the future and its impact on jobs. They look at this country, and they wonder if the cultural fabric can still hold together. Many of them have stopped believing they will ever own a home or raise a family in the communities that they grew up in. That is not the Canada we promised them, and that is not the Canada we are willing to accept. I want to hear the voice of every young person in Vaughan—Woodbridge. They deserve to be heard.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Every Canadian household will pay $3,400 this year for the interest on the federal debt. That is $3,400 per household gone, just to service what the government has borrowed. That number is only going to rise in the foreseeable future. That one number tells Canadians everything they need to know about the Liberal government’s 2026 budget. The finance minister stood in this place just three days ago and told Canadians, “the dream of Canada is alive and well. Young people, increasingly, see themselves in building Canada strong, and we will be there with them.” I would invite the minister to put down the prepared remarks and speak to the young people I represent. About 47% of Canadian home builders are laying off workers. In Ontario, that figure climbs up to 65%. More Canadians are starting businesses in the United States than in Canada. Half a trillion dollars in net investment has fled south of the border. How does the minister call this a dream? For too many young Canadians trying to afford a home, find a job or start a business in this country, it is a nightmare from which they cannot awake. The minister went further and told this House, “Generations will look back at the Prime Minister, the government and the current Parliament and say that we were there for them. We are building long-term wealth and growth.” Indeed, generations will look back at this. They will look back at $80 billion a year in interest payments. They will look back at a government that called debt an investment and mortgaged their future. The government is not building long-term wealth. It is building long-term debt and calling it long-term wealth. It gets much worse than that. The Prime Minister himself straight up misled Canadians when he claimed, just a few weeks ago, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” Every Canadian I have spoken to, regardless of who they are, knows this is false. Let us consider what Conservatives asked for in this update. We asked for the deficit to be capped at $31 billion, the figure Justin Trudeau projected in his last fiscal update, a figure that brought down a finance minister and a prime minister. It is the very deficit that almost toppled a federal government. Under this Prime Minister, the Liberals have more than doubled that number: $66.9 billion this year. That is six straight years of deficits above $53 billion and 11 straight years of deficits from the Liberals. What is amazing is that the Liberals celebrate their $67-billion deficit as if they are being fiscally responsible and stewards of economic management. Imagine this. The Liberals put forward a budget and have a projected deficit of around $80 billion. They then put out a spring economic statement and say, “Look how amazing we are. The deficit is only $67 billion, still more than double what was projected the year Trudeau was prime minister, but less than what we projected a few short months ago. How great are we?” We do not have to imagine that, because that is exactly what the Liberal Prime Minister has done. Outside of the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history, and spending as a share of our economy is the highest it has been since 1996. The government calls this fiscal discipline. This is not discipline. This is a windfall. There was $60.3 billion in new revenue that walked through the finance minister's door, the product of higher personal and corporate taxes, which hurt our competitiveness, and higher oil prices. What did the Prime Minister do with this extra money? He spent it. The government spent two-thirds of a gift it did not earn and asked Canadians to applaud the restraint. The trajectory is actually worse than the headline. Public debt charges are rising 50%, from $54 billion today to almost $81 billion five years from now, more than the government spends on health care transfers and more than it collects from every Canadian who pays GST. While interest climbs, growth falls. Real GDP growth has averaged 2.1% over the last 25 years. It is projected to be 1.7% this decade, and 1.5% for decades to come. The government is borrowing more, growing less and spending the difference on interest. It is mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. Then, there is the sovereign wealth fund. The key word in “sovereign wealth fund” is “wealth”. Norway has surpluses. Saudi Arabia has surpluses. Singapore has surpluses. Canada has a $66-billion deficit and $1.3 trillion in debt. The $25 billion seeding the fund is borrowed. That is not a sovereign wealth fund; it is a sovereign debt fund. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the word of independent voices. Build Canada, a non-partisan civic movement that supports founders and innovators in this country, calls the Canada Strong fund a “war bond”, where Canadians are being asked to “buy equity in the projects” that the government cannot get off the ground by its own merits. The Montreal Economic Institute put it plainly: “We don't need a Canada Infrastructure Bank 2.0”. The Infrastructure Bank is a cautionary tale. Of 108 projects, only 11 have been completed. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the bank will fall $20.1 billion short of its disbursement target. Sixty-seven per cent of its partner funding came from the public sector. The very private capital it was supposed to attract, it is not attracting. The transport committee of this House recommended abolishing it. The government's response was to raise its spending limit by another $10 billion. Canadian pension funds hold $1.33 trillion in foreign assets, 51% of their total holdings. Let us think about that: 51% of their total holdings not invested in Canada. Capital is not missing in this country; confidence is. The spring economic statement mentions artificial intelligence six times across its entire length. There are six mentions and six pillars of the strategy that does not yet exist. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence set his own deadline to deliver the framework. He missed it. His office now tells Canadians the framework is coming soon, but with no specific timeline. Witnesses appearing before the industry committee on this very subject have called the government's consultation process rushed and too corporate-heavy. They have noted the absence of unions, civil society, researchers studying AI work, governance experts, privacy experts and human rights experts. A list of pillar names is not a strategy. While Canada drafts press releases, our competitors are building the technology that will define the next century of economic growth. Debt will cost $3,400 per household this year and $80 billion a year in interest by the end of the decade. We have a sovereign wealth fund with no wealth, a strategy with no plan, a finance minister who calls this a dream and a Prime Minister creating an illusion. Conservatives reject this credit card budget. We would build a paycheque economy where hard work brings home a powerful paycheque, where families can afford groceries and can afford their homes, and where neighbourhoods are safe and opportunity in this country is real. That is the promise of Canada, and that is the promise we will keep. That is why I move this amendment, seconded by the member for Parkland: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following: "the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, since the Bill reflects the Prime Minister's approach to credit-card budgeting by: (a) adding $37.5 billion in inflationary, net new spending; (b) running a deficit more than double the $31 billion last projected when Justin Trudeau was prime minister; (c) continuing to drive inflation up through the creation of more bureaucracies, rather than taking meaningful action to confront the affordability challenges facing Canadians by axing the taxes on groceries, eliminating the fuel standard and industrial carbon tax, scrapping the food packaging tax to make life affordable again; and (d) failing to cut inflationary spending, currently being racked up on the country's credit card, such as the Alto rail project, the Liberal gun grab, excessive use of external consultants, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and taxpayer-funded handouts for fake asylum claimants.

Madam Speaker, $81 billion is the amount of money the Liberal government under the Liberal Prime Minister wants to mortgage away for our young people's future. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government had a chance to demonstrate that they were different. The Liberals had a year to say that they are a different government now and are going to reject the incompetent and fiscally irresponsible ways of the Justin Trudeau Liberal government, but they did not. The mask came off. It is the same Liberal, costly government it always has been. In response to the hon. member, I would ask this: Where are the young people going to work? The Liberals have driven investment out of this country. Companies do not want to open businesses here. People do not want to stay here. There is a trillion-dollar gap between FDI and capital flight in this country. Where are the young people going to work? The Liberals should start acting fiscally responsibly and stop talking and pretending as if they were.

Madam Speaker, the verdict on the costly budget is in, and it is unforgiving. The Globe and Mail reports that for every $100 in revenue, the Liberal government spends $97. The Globe and Mail said, “Even Justin Trudeau would have difficulties in matching that performance.” Federal net debt now exceeds 40% of GDP, and it is rising. Long-term growth is projected to be a measly 1.7%. When will the Prime Minister stop borrowing against a future Canadians can no longer afford?

Madam Speaker, the deficit is now going to be $67 billion. That is up from $31 billion, not down, and the member can recite her talking points all afternoon from the Prime Minister's Office, but the truth is that for months the Prime Minister tried to convince Canadians that he was something different. He wanted them to believe that he was a break from the past. I guess the masks sure fell off this week. The deficit is doubled, spending is accelerated and growth is abandoned. This is not a new government making hard choices; it is the same irresponsible Liberal government making reckless decisions. When will they—

Mr. Speaker, we would think, given all the turmoil and the disastrous record of the Liberal government over the last 10 years, this “new” government, as Liberals like to label themselves, would have easily been able to divorce itself from the disastrous track record and trajectory of the Liberal government. Instead, as we learned this week, it has decided to double the deficit and increase the interest payment on the debt to $80 billion, money that could be used for health care transfers, to lower taxes or for housing. Instead, it is being used to rob a generation of growth and opportunity. We thought the current Prime Minister would be different. Instead, we realize he is just another Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, like many things in this budget, there are no solutions. This budget is full of empty promises. It is full of nothing more than a bunch of announcements that do nothing for people other than to serve the purpose of adding debt and robbing opportunity from a future generation. Unfortunately, jobs are fleeing this country. Young people are going to have less and less opportunity. We have seen that over $1 trillion of capital flight has occurred here in Canada, with the difference between foreign direct investment and capital flight accelerating. More and more people are going to require employment insurance if this keeps up because, really, the government is not providing the conditions for any future opportunity in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claimed that in their latest update they would show discipline. Instead, Canadians got more debt, more spending and more of the same. The deficits are now projected to be double Trudeau's and as debt rises, taxpayers pay the price. Public debt charges are predicted to be more than $54 billion this year, rising to $81 billion in five years. That is money that cannot go to tax relief, cannot go to housing and cannot go to health care. It is no wonder that The Globe and Mail said it is a bit rich for the finance minister to be claiming fiscal responsibility. When will the Liberal Prime Minister end his costly budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. Today, I rise on behalf of the numerous members of the Kurdish community in my riding who are deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis in Syria. They are concerned for the safety, the political rights and the future of the Kurdish people in Syria. They are alarmed about the armed conflict going on there and the intense internal persecution of their people. The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize this fact.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are struggling. Filling up the car to get the kids to school and to get to work is becoming a stress for Canadian families. Conservatives have put forward a plan to put money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, which is to suspend all federal taxes on fuel, saving roughly 25¢ a litre, which would be over $1,200 a year saved for a family of four. Now, the Prime Minister wants to pretend that full relief would somehow blow a hole in the deficit. That is simply not true. Even the Liberals' own former economic adviser Tyler Meredith estimated that, for every $10 increase in oil prices, there is roughly $2 billion in extra federal revenue. With the extra increase in federal revenue coming from rising oil prices, all we are asking the Liberals to do is give back the money that they did not earn. Canadians are already paying about 20% more than Americans at the pumps, despite the fact that they are facing the same global pressures. Families here are paying more, and Liberal taxes are to blame. Why will the Liberal government not give Canadians the full relief that they need at the pumps?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business delivered its verdict on the Prime Minister's economy. Canada is in an “entrepreneurial drought”. For six consecutive quarters, more businesses have closed than opened, and 55% of Canadian business owners now “would not recommend [opening] a business” in this country. High costs, crushing red tape, punishing taxes, that is the Liberal record. After over a decade of the Liberal government, when will the Prime Minister finally reverse its job-crippling policies so Canadian businesses can thrive?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can recite his talking points all afternoon, but 97,000 entrepreneurs have already revealed the truth. High costs, high taxes and red tape are all driving entrepreneurs out of the country. A recent RBC report highlighted $1 trillion in capital flight over the last 10 years. The Liberals never want to talk about that. The Leaders Fund report has said that more than two-thirds of Canadian entrepreneurs are now starting businesses outside the country. Will the Prime Minister commit today to reversing tax and regulatory policies that are shutting down Canadian businesses, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a honour to rise on behalf of the amazing residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge to fight for a more affordable life. Speaking of affordable, I would like to take the opportunity to say that it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister put together a costly majority government, not through the ballot box but through politicians who betrayed their constituents and betrayed their principles, principles they ran on and sought public office on, principles they will be held to account for during the next election. We have been calling for relief at the pumps. Our motion today calls for the Prime Minister to adopt the Conservative plan to suspend all taxes on fuel until the end of the year. Earlier today, the Prime Minister confirmed once again that Conservatives have the solutions for Canada, but Liberals seem to want to introduce only half measures that will not deliver the full benefits to Canadians. This morning, the Prime Minister announced the suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gas and diesel. The suspension takes effect on April 20 and runs until September 7. Any measure that reduces the cost of fuel for Canadians is a step in the right direction, but this is only one part of the four-part plan of our Conservative motion before the House today. Unfortunately the Liberal government and the Prime Minister missed three of the other points of our plan and are not removing tax until the end of the year as we have proposed. Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on tax and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of 2026. This would cut costs by 25¢ a litre and save families, on average, $1,218 this year. This morning's announcement addresses 10¢ of that tax on gas, and only until September 7. A parent in my riding got up this morning, strapped their kids in their car and drove them to school. They then went to work. Before they did any of that, they stopped at the pump. One year ago, that fill-up cost them roughly $92 for a minivan. Last week, it cost them more than $127. Next week, it might be more. Over the years, deliberate policy choices the Liberal government has made built a tax structure on fuel that now squeezes Canadians every time they grip the nozzle. The Prime Minister says he wants to govern in a collaborative way, but the results are nonexistent. It is time for his rhetoric to match reality. It is an illusion that the Prime Minister will deliver on affordability, when he is out to remove only one tax, the fuel excise tax, and only from April 20 until Labour Day. The CAA's own price tracker tells the story plainly. Gas across Canada now averages more than $1.82 a litre, up from $1.32 a year ago and just $1.52 six short weeks ago. That is a 38% spike in the cost of getting to work, getting kids to school and getting food to market. For millions of Canadians who are already living paycheque to paycheque, this compounding crisis, layered on top of crises the government has created, is too much to bear. That is why we are here today to debate the motion. Conservatives have brought a specific plan to deliver immediate relief at the pump. We are calling on the government to adopt it. We need to provide immediate relief for families. Government members are going to rise today and tell us that this is about global oil markets. They will reference the Middle East. They will explain the Strait of Hormuz. We have heard the Prime Minister use at a press conference the exact same description I just referenced, saying it is beyond Canada's control and asking what we could possibly do. The global market explanation has one flaw that can be exposed with a single fact: Americans face the same global oil market, but Canadians pay almost 20% more at the pumps than the Americans do. It is the same disruption, yet when an American family pulls into a gas station, it pays dramatically less. The question that the House needs to be asking is why. The answer is that it is the federal Liberal tax policy. Americans do not pay the fuel excise tax on every litre. They do not pay the clean fuel standard. The hidden carbon tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself confirmed, costs Canadians seven cents per litre, with no rebate attached. Americans do not carry an industrial carbon tax that will rise to $170 a tonne. Here is a precise outline of what Canadians pay in addition to what Americans pay, in federal tax alone on every litre of gasoline: 10¢ a litre in fuel excise tax, which Conservatives are calling to be removed until the end of the year, not just until Labour Day; eight cents a litre in GST on gas and diesel; and seven cents a litre in the hidden carbon tax, with no rebate attached. That is 25¢ in additional costs per litre for all Canadians. On top of that, we have an industrial carbon tax already at $110 per tonne and rising to $170 per tonne. Therefore, when we talk about global markets' being the cause of rising prices, it is indeed an immediate factor, but there are deep-rooted factors caused by our federal government that we could take decisive action on and address today. There is another added dimension in the crisis the government hopes Canadians do not notice: The higher the price is on fuel, the more the government collects. According to a former Liberal top economic adviser, Tyler Meredith, every $10 increase in the price per barrel of oil brings roughly $2 billion in additional revenue for the federal government through the higher taxes paid by the oil industry from higher profits. For context, oil is currently trading at $45 to $55 above pre-war baselines. The federal government stands to collect $9 billion or $10 billion in additional annual revenue if these prices are sustained. These figures have been validated by independent economists, such as Scotiabank's director of forecasting and modelling, Olivier Gervais. The Conservative plan asks for $5 billion of that $9 billion windfall to be returned to Canadians, who generated it. Let us be clear: Conservatives are not asking the Liberals to spend money they do not have. We are asking them to return money they did not earn, which is money that flows directly to Ottawa precisely because Canadians are paying more at the pump. After years of Conservatives and Canadians from across the country pleading it do so, the government eliminated the consumer carbon tax, yet what the Liberals try to hide from the public is that two more taxes remain in place, and both of those taxes are growing. The clean fuel standard is silent. It is invisible on the price board at the pump, but that seven cents per litre is there every time we fill up our vehicle. Then there is the industrial carbon tax, currently at $110 per tonne and scheduled to rise again to $170 per tonne. The Liberals will tell us that this tax hits only industry, but the Canadian Federation of Independent Business tells us that nearly 70% of small businesses have seen their energy costs rise, and 32% of them already have raised their prices just to cover it. The Fraser Institute analysis found that the trajectory to $170 per tonne will cost the average Canadian worker $1,160 in lost annual income, eliminate 50,000 jobs and shrink our economy by 1.3%. All this is to say that Liberals can try to reduce the impact of this all they want, but businesses do not absorb taxes. Taxes flow through to the shelf, and consumers pay more. Every time a Liberal member rises in the House and suggests that the industrial carbon tax does not touch ordinary Canadians, they contradict the lived experience of every small business owner and every family who has watched their grocery bill rise and the price at the pumps go up. To reiterate, this four-point plan will be before the House—

Mr. Speaker, the four-point plan before the House today is the following: to remove the fuel excise tax, which is adding 10¢ a litre, for the remainder of 2026; to remove the GST on gas and diesel, which is eight cents a litre, for the remainder of 2026; to permanently remove the clean fuel standard, which is seven cents a litre; and to permanently remove the industrial carbon tax. If we look around the world at many of our allies, Australia has cut fuel and diesel taxes in half for three months. Germany announced $1.9 billion in fuel price relief. Ireland has cut its excise tax duty by 10¢ per litre. Spain, Italy, Austria and Portugal have all moved on this, but Canada, a country that produces its own oil, has done the least of all of them. It is time for the Prime Minister to listen to Canadians and support our plan to leave more money in the pockets of people and make life more affordable back home. He took the first step in our Conservative plan this morning. The House can do the rest now.

Mr. Speaker, of course, we should not be surprised with the plan the Liberal Prime Minister announced today. While it does include one point of our four-point plan to make life more affordable for Canadians, everything the Liberal government does, especially under the current Prime Minister, is half measures. The Liberals have all this rhetoric about all the amazing things they are going to do, how they are going to help people and how they are going to make life more affordable, but the reality of what they actually do never really lines up with what they say. That is why our plan wants us to go even further and deeper, so there are more savings for Canadians. We want to cut the industrial carbon tax, remove the fuel standard, remove the excise tax until the end of the year, and most importantly, continue the good fight for the working men and women of this country so we can make life more affordable for them.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows I have a lot of respect for him as well. However, on this side of the House, we are very well aware that the Liberals just put together a costly majority, not at the ballot box, but with cheap backroom tricks to get politicians of this House to betray their own voters and constituents. Of course, there is nothing cheap or political about putting money back into the pockets of the very hard-working men and women of this country, who would find nothing political and cheap about getting the government to remove the GST on gas and diesel, adding eight cents a litre of savings, permanently removing the fuel energy standard, saving another seven cents a litre, and removing the industrial carbon tax that is poised to go up to $170 per tonne, which is completely unacceptable. It is common sense. If we add inputs, we drive up costs and make things more expensive. If we get rid of those inputs, things get cheaper. I do not understand why the Liberal government cannot understand this very simple fact.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, as in many ridings all across this country, people are finding it more and more expensive to fill up their tanks at the gas station. Very simply, when we look at the things the Liberal government announces, as I said in my speech, its actions never match reality. It is very unfortunate that the government has decided to only take one portion of our plan to make life more affordable for Canadians. The Prime Minister said he wants to collaborate and work together. If he wants his rhetoric to match reality, then he should adopt the rest of our plan, go the full way, remove the GST from gas and diesel, remove the fuel standard, remove the industrial carbon tax and let us work together to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's rhetoric is completely disconnected from reality. He said that Canada would be the best economy in the G7, yet he has delivered the worst, as 100,000 jobs are gone in two months. Here is Canada's G7 record. Canada has the only shrinking economy, the highest food inflation, the highest household debt and the second-highest unemployment. He continues to point to global pressures, but every other G7 country is facing the exact same problems. Their economies are growing and ours is shrinking. This is a domestic failure made in Canada by the Liberal government. When will they reverse their economic policies that are failing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his avid defence of religious freedom in this chamber, at committee and across this entire country. I was listening to the arguments from the Liberals and they seem to not take religious freedom seriously. They chalk it up to a fundraising scheme. I was wondering if my hon. colleague could lay out exactly why a defence of religious freedom is so important, because it seems that the Liberals do not understand why it is fundamental to our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would like to put forward a supplementary report. Canada's defence industrial capacity must be understood as part of the broader national strategy of sovereignty and resilience. As Canada enters a more uncertain geopolitical era, economic strength, energy, security, technological capability and military readiness are increasingly inseparable. Stated plainly, we view defence industrial renewal as inseparable from our linked national objectives. The first of these is restoring strategic self-reliance in energy and critical resources. The second is rebuilding military capability through faster and more agile procurement. The third is asserting Arctic sovereignty through dual-use northern infrastructure. The fourth is ensuring digital sovereignty so that defence-relevant data systems and intellectual property remain under Canadian control. A defence industrial strategy requires more than incremental administrative reform. It requires a broader national effort to strengthen what is in Canada's control: strategic resources, Arctic infrastructure, procurement speed, sovereign industrial capacity, innovative deployment, digital sovereignty and operational readiness.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, at second reading. It was put forward by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, and I am proud to have seconded the legislation. I just listened to the Liberal government's narrative of our perspective on crime, and it is an alternative universe. This bill, the jail not bail act, was announced in Woodbridge last September, in my riding, where the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member from Oxford and I, along with other colleagues, were joined by the families of victims. The members of these families were crying in our arms. They had felt the pain of a failed Liberal bail system and the constant consequences of inaction. The location of this announcement was not a coincidence. Woodbridge was chosen because the people who live there know this problem first-hand. They do not live in the abstract where politicians debate theories of justice. They live in the real world, the here and now, and they live with the consequences of the broken bail system and constant Liberal inaction. I want to start in Vaughan because I feel similar to what the member for Kelowna is feeling. Vaughan feels like ground zero to many in our community for the issue of crime in this country. Now, according to York Regional Police, in the latest full-year report on crime statistics for 2024, my community recorded 16,407 criminal offences, the highest of any municipality in York region. We recorded 749 break and enters, 1,996 assaults, 274 reported sexual violations and 167 robberies. All of this was in a single year. The stats highlight the numbers; however, there is a reality that members of the House need to realize. The reality is that, just last week, in the early hours of March 17, armed suspects forced their way into a home on Carrville Woods Circle in Vaughan. The homeowner, to protect his family, discharged a legally owned firearm. Two suspects are still at large. The family at home did nothing wrong. They had no choice, and they had no warning. Some weeks before that, a man was shot dead outside a business at Weston Road and Rowntree Dairy Road in the middle of the afternoon. In February, a Thornhill residence was struck by gunfire. On another evening, shots were fired at a home on Allison Ann Way. In the early hours of a cold January morning, a man was shot near Martin Grove Road. A gun was seized after a commercial break-in at a Vaughan business. Another investigation linked one suspect to nine separate break and enters across Vaughan and Markham. This is what daily life has become in my riding. When I look at the reality and at what our bill system has been doing, that connection is not hard to find. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, violent crime in Canada is up by 55%, firearm offences are up 130%, extortion is up 330%, sexual assaults are up 76% and homicides are up 29%. These are Statistics Canada figures. They reflect a decade of policy choices that constantly prioritize the rights of the accused over the safety of the community. In 2019, Bill C-75, the Liberals inserted what is called the “Principle of restraint” to the Criminal Code. That principle directs judges and justices of the peace to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions. My colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, a former Crown attorney, explained precisely what that means in practice, which is that it does not matter how serious the charge, how long the criminal record or how many times the accused has already breached a bail order, the law tells the court that it has to let them go. Then in 2022, Bill C-5 repealed mandatory minimum sentences for serious firearms and violent crimes, as well as extended the availability of conditional sentences, house arrest, for offences that most Canadians would expect to end in imprisonment. The deterrent effect of the justice system was weakened at both ends, at the point of bail and again at the point of sentencing. The Liberals have since introduced Bill C-14 and have framed it as bail reform. I want to be fair. It is better than what exists today. Conservatives worked on that committee to strengthen the bill wherever we could. We secured tighter surety rules, provisions for repeat violent offenders who re-offend on release and annual reporting requirements. However, when we pushed for public safety to become the primary governing principle, moved to eliminate house arrest for major crimes and sought mandatory consecutive sentences for repeat human traffickers, the Liberals voted against every one of those amendments. Of course, the fundamental problem with Liberal bail is that the principle of restraint would still remain. It would be modified at the edges, but it would still there, telling the courts to default towards release. The culture of prioritizing release is perpetual in our justice system, and the Liberal bail bill, Bill C-14, would do nothing to address this. Bill C-242, the jail not bail act, starts from a different premise entirely. It would remove the principle of restraint and replace it with a clear direction that public and community safety is the primary consideration for the justice system. It would change what judges would be asked to weigh first when someone stands before them: public safety over early release. The bill would create a major offence category covering some of the most serious crimes we see in communities like Vaughan: firearm offences, sexual offences, kidnapping, human trafficking, home invasions, robbery, extortion and arson. For anyone charged with one of these offences, the bill would establish a presumption of detention. For repeat violent offenders, the bill would heighten the risk standards. Today, courts ask whether there is a substantial likelihood that an offender would reoffend. This bill would change that to “reasonable foreseeability”, meaning whether a reasonable person looking at an accused's full criminal history, record of breaching orders and pattern of how they have moved through the system would conclude that their risk of reoffending is real. Bill C-242 would also close gaps in our system. For example, it would bar anyone convicted of an indictable offence from serving as a guarantor. It is difficult to believe that this needs to be legislated at all, but right now in this country, someone who is an organized crime member can legally vouch for another person in bail proceedings. That would end under our bill. The bill would also require non-resident accused persons to surrender their passports. The difference between the Liberal bill and the one before us today is that what the Liberals propose and what we are proposing is a matter of effective execution and practicality. Liberal bail reform would keep the principle of restraint. Our Conservative bill would repeal it. The Liberals want to encourage courts to consider an accused person's history. The jail not bail act would make that consideration mandatory. The Liberals do not touch surety eligibility or passport surrender. Our Conservative approach would address both. The differences are clear. The Liberals still default to release, and the Conservatives start from a principle that public safety must be the key consideration of the justice system. The Liberals have suggested that Bill C-242 would raise constitutional concerns. It would not. In the Crown v. Lloyd decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that mandatory minimum penalties need to be narrow and targeted. The measures introduced in the jail not bail act are targeted and proportionate measures directed at a defined category of repeat violent offenders who are before the courts under serious charges. I am very confident it would be charter-compliant. I would also observe that charter compliance cuts both ways. The charter protects the rights of law-abiding Canadians and victims too, not just those who are charged with harming them. I challenge my Liberal colleagues to remember this position. The Bloc members have also raised concerns that more detention would strain prison capacity. We agree that we must modernize our justice system, but it is important to understand that the data do not support the worry over prison capacity. As my colleague from Oxford rightly pointed out, this issue is about repeat offenders. In Kelowna, 15 individuals committed 1,500 crimes in a single year. In Vancouver, 40 people, in one year, were arrested 6,000 times. The chronic high-volume offenders this bill targets are not filling prisons and leaving. They are cycling through the system repeatedly, generating arrest after arrest, hearing after hearing and breach after breach. When this legislation was announced, it was informed by direct consultation with police chiefs, police associations, mayors, victim advocates and families of people killed by repeat offenders who should have never been free in the first place, but under Liberal bail law they were. I urge every member to support this bill at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and Canadians all across this country, the young, the old and everyone in between, who do not need to be told that there is a housing crisis. They can see the fact that there is a housing crisis clear as day. They see it in the listing prices. They see it in the rent that is consuming half their paycheques. There are young adults living in their parents' basements, unable to leave those homes. Families, young people, are seeing this in delayed family plans. After a decade of having the Liberals in government, housing prices have doubled in this country and home ownership is increasingly out of reach. For young people in Canada, they are the first generation less likely than their parents to own a home. Eighty-eight per cent of renters say that they feel they will never own a home. It is just a dream somewhere far off in the distance. Half of millennials and two-thirds of gen Zs are delaying starting a family. Youth unemployment has reached record levels at 14.7%, and a generation has been locked out of work and housing. However, this crisis is not just specific to the young. Slower growth, weaker retirement security, the cost of living and the cost of housing affect everyone. They put pressure on a construction industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people all across Canada. There is a dream in Canada of home ownership, and it is more than a dream. For many people, it is a rite of passage. For many people, it signifies the transition from childhood to adulthood, and that dream is eroding. The Building Industry and Land Development Association, or BILD, just the other week said that there are only 269 homes that have been sold in the GTA. That is down 36% year over year, and 80% below our 10-year average. Typical January sales in 2026, for example, are 1,300 sales or more. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, has said that housing starts are down 15% in January, and it sees construction declining through 2028. It argues that 2026 might be the weakest year in decades. Builders are hesitant to build due to the rising uncertainty in the market and the rising uncertainty with government policy. Let us take a look at what some of the building associations are saying. Kevin Lee from the Canadian Home Builders' Association says that the biggest barriers to our housing development are development charges, permitting delays and insufficient processes. Let us look at the municipal fees. They have completely skyrocketed. They are up $27,500 on average since 2022. The average is now $82,600. Some cities cite as much as $200,000 per home. I have heard from people in the industry, as I am sure many others have, that we are now looking at approximately 33% of the list price of a home in government development fees, taxes, levies and red tape. Approval timelines are another hurdle preventing builders from building. It is nearly one year for a permit, on average. Thirty-plus studies are being required in some municipalities. Delays equal higher borrowing costs for developers, and higher borrowing costs equal higher prices. New home sales are down roughly 90% since 2021, and as I mentioned earlier, construction jobs are at risk. That is the backdrop in which we are discussing Bill C-20. Bill C-20 does not address any of these issues I laid out. What it would do is create a new Crown corporation that would have sweeping powers to acquire land, invest in housing ventures and provide loans and financial assistance. The government plans to spend $13 billion over five years: $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes and $1.5 billion for Canada Lands Company. That is the third housing agency and fourth federal bureaucracy. The central problem with this plan, as the minister himself admitted, is that there are no actual top-line targets. An economist at the Ivey Business School, Mike Moffatt, has said there are no key indicators in place. He has never seen this before. There is no clarity on price points or on what the target should be. The PBO said that only 26,000 units will be built over five years. That is 26,000 units in a country that needs hundreds of thousands of homes per year. What does Bill C-20 not do? It does not cut development charges or assist municipalities with cutting development charges. It does not reduce approval timelines. It does not tie infrastructure to housing results. It does not cut the GST for all buyers on new homes. It certainly does not eliminate the capital gains tax on reinvestment or remove a single study requirement, or remove or reduce a single municipal fee. Instead, it centralizes more authority in Ottawa and expands the federal footprint, adding yet another layer of government. The problem we are facing here is simple. It is the cost of building: the development charges, the industrial carbon tax that is impacting material costs, the endless regulatory layering, the approval delays and the lack of clarity. Builders want less government in the way, not more. What has the government's response been? It is that they have a bureaucracy that will solve that problem, which seems to be a common theme with the Liberal government. What would we do? The Conservative approach would be tied directly to results. We would tie infrastructure funding to 15% annual increases in homebuilding. We would cut development charges by 50%, and we would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. This would save families $65,000, approximately, on a purchase. We would also end capital gains on reinvestment in new housing to spur the economy. If we look at the bigger picture, housing starts are less than half of what is needed to restore affordability. From 2022 to 2031, it is predicted we will see the fewest homes built per person since 1972. This is a crisis that is built layer by layer, with rising taxes, rising fees, rising delays and rising uncertainty. All of this creates conditions in which development will not foster and will not spur, and developers will not build. Everyone is feeling this and everyone is paying: young Canadians, families and retirees. What we need to do is contrast this bill, which reorganizes authority, expands spending, lacks measurable targets and does not confront structural barriers, with what the Liberal government needs to do. It needs to adopt our plan and target structural reform. We see this time and time again when we are talking about various areas of policy in this country. We have structural issues facing our country, such as regulatory hurdles and the tax framework, all these things that need to be revamped significantly to get the economy moving. We have the workers. We have the materials, and we have the capital. We need a government that is willing to work with us to remove these barriers. Canadians deserve measurable targets, lower costs and real supply growth, and they deserve a path to ownership. That is the social contract in this country: People want to own their homes. Government can partner with municipalities to make these things happen. It can partner with the provincial governments and work together to remove some of the costs impeding the growth of this sector. It is long past due that we have a change in direction. What we do not need is more recycled policy. We do not need to see the same approach over and over again. We certainly do not need more government bureaucracy and more government spending. Housing must be restored for an entire generation of Canadians that feels left out.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government has been in power for 10 years now. That member himself has been here for the last 15 years, or is it 20 years at this point? Either way, we have the same problem facing this country that we have had over the last 10 years. We have house prices that have doubled. We have stakeholders and industry stakeholders who are yelling at the top of their lungs what the solutions are, which I laid out. They are to cut government taxes, facilitate the reduction or removal of DCs and of levies, and get rid of the HST on home purchases. Just work with us. Steal our ideas. Take them. Implement them. Let us solve this crisis together.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that the government needs to not add more layers of bureaucracy. It does not need to spend more money on another Crown corporation that would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The provinces and municipalities know what needs to be done. They need to be able to facilitate a reduction in development charges and levies. The federal government should partner with them by creating targets and transfers, so that governments at the municipal level and the provincial level can get rid of these barriers and let developers build and get shovels in the ground, so we can create the housing supply that we need in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third housing agency and the fourth government bureaucracy that has been created. At some point, we are just wondering where the fresh ideas are. Where are the new ideas? Instead, the Liberals are recycling old policy and old plans that would do nothing but add money to the debt. Right now, the PBO has said their plan would create only 26,000 homes over a five-year period. We know what to do. Get government out of the way. Let us get the industry building.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora spoke a moment ago about how we can collaborate together and strengthen legislation, as demonstrated by these amendments. I was wondering if the member could take a moment to speak to the importance of the scrutiny of bills that sound rather innocuous, like a budget implementation act, but are some 600 pages long. Perhaps the member could elaborate on why it is important that the opposition scrutinize legislation that is this expansive.

Mr. Speaker, fraudulent and rejected asylum claims are straining a health care system that millions of Canadians cannot fully access. The interim federal health program's costs have more than quadrupled in four years, from $211 million to $896 million, and they are projected to reach $1.5 billion by 2029. At committee, we learned that providers are billing taxpayers up to five times the provincial rate for services to rejected claimants. Meanwhile, some six million Canadians lack a family doctor, yet failed claimants have supplementary benefits including vision care, benefits that many Canadians must pay for out of pocket. This is neither fair nor sustainable. Conservatives are calling for limiting benefits for rejected claimants to emergency and life-saving care only. We are calling for full annual transparency to Parliament and the immediate removal of foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes. Canada is a compassionate country, but it must first be fair to its own citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's housing market is sending alarming signals. New home sales in the GTA have fallen to their lowest point in 45 years, putting up to a hundred thousand jobs at risk. Across major markets, sales are down sharply, while builders report layoffs and are having growing concern about their ability to stay afloat. At the same time, home ownership among Canadians 30 years old to 34 years old has fallen significantly over the past decade, and new housing supply is failing to keep pace with population growth. Nearly nine in 10 Canadians now express concerns about housing affordability, and many young people are considering leaving their communities because home ownership feels out of reach. Without action, an entire generation now risks being locked out of home ownership in their own communities. Young Canadians deserve policies that increase housing supplies. When will the Liberals collaborate with us and remove barriers to construction so we can restore the dream of home ownership for young people in this country again?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people in the great riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. This is my first opportunity to rise in the House of Commons following the tragic and devastating news coming out of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. Like many people in the House, I have to say that as a father it is hard to even imagine the pain and the suffering that these families are going through. As we all know, there are no words we could say that would truly offer comfort. However, I would like to say the people of Vaughan—Woodbridge are thinking of these families. Our love is with them. We stand with them, and our prayers will be with them. It is an honour to rise today to speak about the auto industry. Canada has been building automobiles for over a century. From Windsor to Oshawa, from Brampton to Sainte-Thérèse, there are generations of skilled workers who have worked in the auto industry. We have tradespeople, engineers and plant workers. These people have been the heartbeat of Canada's great automotive sector, one of the greatest automotive sectors in the history of the world. Our automotive industry really does represent the best of Canadian innovation and manufacturing prowess. It is home to some 600,000 indirect and direct jobs, and it has a GDP of $16 billion. Before coming to Parliament, I spent my career in the steel industry, in the steel service centre business, which is nestled right in the automotive supply chain. I have had the opportunity to work with many great people, those who work on the factory floors and those in the offices that support these workers. These people represent the best of what it means to be Canadian. These people do not work for fortune or for fame. They strap on their boots every single day to go to work to ensure that their children have a better life than they did. They work to ensure our country is better off than it was before. These are the very people who represent the ideals of Canadian identity. It is unfortunate that we often think just about the numbers and the statistics, the GDP and the job numbers. The numbers represent these people, and they truly represent what it means to be Canadian: that work, that discipline, that ethic. Unfortunately, our auto industry and the industry associated with it has been in decline for many years. I witnessed this first-hand in my time working in this industry. I remember when I first started in the steel business, I was at a conference and someone asked a major auto parts supply manufacturer why their company no longer invested in Canada. The response was that other countries roll out the red carpet, but Canada seems to want to roll out the red tape. It is no surprise that over the past 10 years we have witnessed a sharp decline in the number of automobiles manufactured in our country. It is an almost 50% decline, from 2.3 million vehicles to roughly 1.2 million vehicles. Some of this obviously has to do with the natural process of globalization, but most of it has been the result of some major structural issues facing our economy. These issues have led to a negative business environment so astounding it is actually approaching the point of miracle. We now have some 320,000 different federal regulations, with over 105,000 regulations on the manufacturing sector alone. At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we heard over and over again from people in the automotive sector when we had our emergency study that some of the major barriers to the prosperity of the industry are the regulatory environment and some of the tax framework issues that are preventing capital from being spent on capital projects in this country and driving capital outflows to places like the U.S. and Mexico. This is where we start to see the divergence between capital outflow and FDI into Canada. All of this was long before the unjustified tariffs that have been put in place by U.S. President Trump. These tariffs, as I have said many times in the House during debates on the auto sector and at committee, are certainly the catalyst in the industry, but they do not explain the decades' worth of decline in this sector. It is very understandable why Canadians find tariffs not only intellectually reprehensible but morally repugnant, because many of us, if not all of us, looked at the U.S. not only as an economic partner but as a cultural partnership. Many of us have family connections in the United States. It is almost as if a family member has stabbed us in the back. The ties between the U.S. and Canada run deep. We have also heard the U.S. President take aim at our auto sector, saying that he wants to relocate the Canadian auto industry back to the United States. That attack does not just threaten jobs and GDP; it is an attack on what it means to be Canadian. It is an attack on the hard-working person who straps on their boots every day. These attacks, although vicious, have provided us with an opportunity, because as a mature country, Canada must begin to think for itself. It is no secret that for decades at this point, we have outsourced our economy and security to the United States. While we cannot control what it does, we can certainly fix what we do here at home. Earlier this month, the government unveiled its new auto strategy, within which it finally repealed the EV mandate, which we welcome and have been arguing for. Of course, that target was always unrealistic. We heard that time and again from industry leaders and experts. It is nice that it has listened to the Conservatives and removed this policy. That said, I am worried it is trying to back-door it through an excessive regulatory framework and I certainly have questions around it. For instance, 80% to 90% of the vehicles we manufacture are exported, and 90% to 92% of those exports are directly targeted at the U.S. What will the costs associated with these regulatory measures be? How will that hamper or bolster competitiveness? Are the Americans adopting this standard, because as we know, we have a lot of cross-border interactions in the supply chain. Certainly, we cannot have one without the other. The centrepiece for the government's auto strategy is this new five-year, $2.3-billion EV affordability program, offering $5,000 in rebates for vehicles under $50,000 for which Canada has a free trade agreement. The difficulty for me on this is that the vast majority of EVs sold in Canada are not actually built in Canada. We currently assemble one fully electric vehicle that qualifies under the new rules, the Dodge Charger EV in Windsor. Meanwhile, the long list of eligible vehicles for this initiative are from foreign countries. This is where I question if this strategy was actually fully thought-out, because Canadian taxpayers will be subsidizing electric vehicles that are made in the United States while the U.S. is threatening our auto industry and displacing our workers. At the same time, the American President has said he wants to attack one of the industries that really represents the identity of what it means to be Canadian. We have already lost 5,000 jobs in this sector. What I cannot understand is why we are rewarding the Americans for this. It makes no sense. My colleague, the shadow minister for industry, asked the Minister of Industry this exact question at committee and she had no answer. We know that less than 5% of the vehicles built in Canada will qualify for this program. That means the majority of the $2.3 billion will flow to foreign manufacturers. What kind of message does this send to workers? What kind of message does this send to the auto workers in Brampton who are supposed to build the Jeep Compass? How do we explain this to the 1,200 former employees in Ingersoll who are now seeing more than half of their lump-sum severance taken away in tax? Under section 153 of the Income Tax Act, the minister has the regulatory authority to reduce withholding rates so that workers can access more of this money. We hope the government will support us in our approach to build here, so we can—

Mr. Speaker, it is great news that a small portion of the EVs that are actually sold have parts that are manufactured in Canada. However, does the member know what would further increase the parts made in Canada? It is if the Liberal government would take our plan and remove the GST from new car purchases. That would signal to the industry and to consumers that we are serious about getting the industry moving. It would increase sales, and even more parts would be manufactured at facilities like the great manufacturer of auto parts in my riding. Hopefully, the Liberals will collaborate with us and remove the taxes on vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we support our oil and gas sector in this country. We know that because our country is currently under threat from an American trade war, and our number one resource and number one driver of the economy is our natural resources. We have among the strictest environmental regulations in the entire world, and we make some of the cleanest products here in Canada. This is something we should be proud of. This is something we should stand up for and promote. We should be focused not only on exporting oil and gas to the world but on building cars here in Canada, protecting auto jobs here in Canada and creating the business environment and regulatory environment for businesses to manufacture products and export them to the world.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I find it very perplexing that at a time when we are under an unprecedented attack on our auto industry from the American President through tariffing one of our key sectors, the plan for our auto strategy encompasses within it this idea that we are going to subsidize vehicles that are mostly made in the United States. It absolutely makes no sense. What does that say to the hard-working men and women in our auto sector who have been laid off and face increasing uncertainty. We have 5,000 jobs that have been lost and many more are on the chopping block. When will the Liberals take our plan to get the GST off all cars?

Mr. Speaker, last week, a man in Woodbridge was gunned down in broad daylight. This week, a home in Vaughan was targeted for a shooting for the fourth time in five months. Now the York Regional Police chief has said that police service will not participate in the federal Liberal government's gun grab, because it does not address the underlying sources of gun crime. Most provinces and territories have opted out. Dozens of police services have now refused to participate. With little support from the police and provinces, will the Liberal government finally end this ideologically driven scheme and focus on stopping illegal guns and repeat violent offenders?

Mr. Speaker, a new report shows that 10% of all Canadian small businesses have been wiped out since 2020 as new closures outpace start-ups. The Bank of Canada now says that it expects only 1.1% GDP growth next year, that businesses are delaying expansion plans, and that growth in business investment is forecast to remain flat for 2026. Businesses do not want to invest here, because regulations and taxes make it difficult for businesses to invest and grow. When will the Prime Minister listen to Conservative ideas and finally remove taxes and barriers that are stopping Canadian businesses from building and investing?

Mr. Speaker, other countries are growing faster because they are cutting red tape and encouraging investment. Meanwhile, here in Canada, over 121,000 small businesses have closed since 2020. Domestic growth is shaped by the overall investment climate. Canadian businesses are postponing projects, productivity is falling and small businesses are closing at alarming rates. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet since he was elected, not a single anti-development law has been repealed, and tax burdens continue to rise. Will the government work with us to remove its own barriers to growth and get out of the way so we can build again in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to recognize Waves of Changes for Autism, a charity in Vaughan that is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I would like to congratulate Ellen Contardi and her entire board for all their efforts over the years. Waves of Changes for Autism helps families that have children with autism. It helps them offset the cost of therapies. It has funded over 700 applications and has raised over $2.5 million since 2016. Since its inception, it has made sure that every single dollar has had an impact. In 2026 we dedicate this milestone by marking a decade of hope, a decade of opportunity and a decade of giving. Again, I congratulate Waves of Changes for Autism. It is an honour to rise today to discuss a very important issue in our country related to public safety. Canadians expect Parliament to approach criminal law with seriousness and humility. Our decisions have the utmost real-life impacts on Canadians. They determine how we protect victims, how we hold offenders to account and whether people feel safe in their home and in their community. That responsibility demands clarity, discipline and honesty. Bill C-16 would meet that standard in many important respects. In others, it would not. I want to be clear from the outset. I have witnessed, upon returning to Ottawa in this winter session, the falsehoods coming from the Liberal government: that Conservatives are obstructing legislation on public safety. Many of the victim-focused provisions come directly from legislation introduced by my Conservative colleagues prior to the introduction of Bill C-16. Making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree was a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in Bill C-225. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to capture sexually explicit deepfakes draws directly from my Conservative colleague's bill, the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill's bill, Bill C-216. Of course, updating the mandatory reporting requirements for child sex exploitation material legislation was originally enacted by a previous Conservative government and later modernized through Conservative initiatives. We support these measures. We have supported them consistently. We have called for them long before the government had decided that public safety had become politically inconvenient to ignore. That context matters because Canadians are being told a story by the Liberal government. They are being told that Conservatives are blocking progress. They are being told that we are unwilling to move legislation forward, and they are being told that democratic debate amounts to indifference toward victims. That narrative collapses under even modest scrutiny. Allow me to highlight the case of Bill C-14, the Liberals' bail reform legislation. We all know that for years Conservatives have been calling on the government to get tough on crime and tough on repeat offenders. Bill C-14, while not going far enough, is better than what we have now. It would not address the underlying issue of removing the principle of restraint from Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which is leading to the catch-and-release issues we are plagued with today. Since the Liberals are making their rounds in the media, suggesting we are obstructing bail reform, for the people watching at home let me highlight how the Liberals play politics with crime. The Liberals finally introduced their bail reform legislation on October 23. On November 18 they went to committee. Instead of advancing the legislation at committee so it could get expert testimony and be sent back to the House of Commons for a vote and be passed, from November 18 all the way to January 27 they chose to prioritize a different bill, Bill C-9, and support a Bloc amendment that attacks freedom of expression and religious freedom, an amendment they knew we could not support. We asked 20 times before the Christmas break for bail reform to be moved ahead, but this was denied. Why? The Liberals did so in order to advance a narrative that because we are fighting back against Bill C-9 and their attacks on freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how Liberals are playing politics with public safety. Conservatives have been calling for stronger responses to violent crime, which is up 55%; to human trafficking, which is up 84%; and to sexual assaults, which have gone up 76% in this country since the Liberal government took office. We did so when the government dismissed rising crime as a perception problem. We still have former Liberal members of Parliament, like the one from Vaughan—Woodbridge, suggesting that crime is just a perception problem by using year-over-year statistics instead of a multi-year average to look at the actual trends. We did so while Liberals repealed mandatory penalties, expanded constitutional sentences and pursued a bail framework that has left communities, including Vaughan, less safe. Bill C-16 combines measures that strengthen public safety with a sweeping restructuring of sentencing law that is fundamentally weakening Parliament's role. That is the problem and that is why the bill should, indeed, be split. The creation of coercive or controlling conduct offences within intimate relationships is a serious and necessary reform. Earlier intervention before abuse escalates into severe violence or homicide is very important. Conservatives support this approach. The expansion of deepfake offences is necessary to respond to modern forms of sexual exploitation. Conservatives support this as well. The procedural reforms aimed at reducing trial delays deserve careful study. Justice delayed serves neither the accused nor the victim. Conservatives are prepared to engage constructively on those provisions. However, embedded within the bill is a sentencing provision that does not belong with the rest. It is a provision that would transform mandatory minimum penalties into discretionary suggestions. It is a provision that would apply across almost the entire Criminal Code. It is a provision that would fundamentally alter how Parliament expresses denunciation for the most serious crimes. Under Bill C-16, judges would be required to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum whenever applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. That provision would apply to nearly every mandatory minimum in federal law, excluding only murder and high treason. In practical terms, mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory at all. That includes offences such as aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and multiple other firearms offences. Parliament set these penalties deliberately, not casually or symbolically, because certain conduct is so dangerous, so destructive and so harmful that incarceration was deemed to be the baseline, not the exception. The Supreme Court has never held that mandatory minimum penalties are unconstitutional per se. It has never stripped Parliament of its authority to impose them. Section 12 of the charter prohibits punishment that is “grossly disproportionate”. The House should pay close attention to what the court actually said, particularly in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville. In that case, the court was sharply divided. The majority relied on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate mandatory minimum penalties for child sex exploitation offences, but the dissent, led by Chief Justice Wagner, issued a warning that Parliament would be reckless to ignore. That dissent reaffirmed a foundational principle. Hypotheticals must be reasonable. They must have a real, factual and legal connection to the offence before the court. Parliament is not required to legislate for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. Using remote or extreme hypotheticals to dismantle sentencing floors risks undermining democratic accountability itself. Those words matter. Bill C-16 ignores that warning entirely. Instead of responding to Senneville with discipline by clarifying offence definitions or crafting a narrow and targeted safety valve, the government chose the most expansive option available. It used a contested decision as justification for wholesale retreat from Parliament's sentencing authority. The government will point to law enforcement organizations and victim advocacy groups that have welcomed parts of the bill. Conservatives respect those voices. We listen to them and we agree with them on many of the reforms contained within the bill. However, broad support for certain provisions does not mean Parliament should abandon its duty to scrutinize the whole. Millions of Canadians voted for the official opposition to do precisely that: Hold the government to account, improve legislation and demand excellence, especially on matters of public safety. Conservatives stand ready to work. We stand ready to improve this legislation. Of course, we stand firmly on the side of victims, communities and public safety.